Michelle Malkin shows just how nutty the Congressional Black Caucus was in screaming and yelling about the use of the term "refugee" in describing those leaving New Orleans (and elsewhere):
refugee: n : an exile who flees for safety.
Sounds pretty damn logical, doesn't it? Especially, too, after the same friggin' term was used for those escaping Hurricanes Andrew, Charley, Frances, Ivan ... and so on.
UPDATE: I suppose I could have put all these recent posts into a "Hurricane Politics, part 5" entry. But I didn't. Oh well.
Agreed -- it's certainly not racist, and that is nutty. But I did deem it inaccurate, in my own mind.
American Heritage Dictionary:
One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution.
I think it's at least an atypical and not entirely accurate usage.
Posted by: dan at September 5, 2005 02:02 PM"As in" refers to common examples. It is not limiting. If it said "One who flees in search of refuge in times of...", then it would be defining and limiting.
That aside, I found the use disquieting, but decided I was uncomfortable with it because of false pride, not proper usage. Frankly it is embarrassing to think that America can produce refugees, but there they are.
And there are the usual liberal suspects with their one way racial sensitivities pumping up the hate.
I expect to see Saint Nagin nominated for a Nobel.
Right, I realize it's not a limiter. But I think the use is, as I said, "atypical."
And I think the false pride thing is something we're all feeling a little of. We're just finding different people to blame for it.
Posted by: dan at September 5, 2005 04:22 PM